Mods and ARMA 3 on the same level as FSX?

[clydefrog 3]

This will ruin the editing/scripting/modding community, there is nothing good about it. The argument about raising quality is bs, a lot of people who make mods already do what they are capable of with them and make them as good as they possibly can. I doubt they are thinking "oh I could actually make this so much better but I won't bother because I'm not being paid for it", they do it because they enjoy doing it, it's their hobby.

Sure some people might get a monetary reward for working hard on their mods but that one thing is not at all worth all of the adverse effects on the community it would have. I hope BI put this idea to a public vote or something (ideally they would just see themselves that it was a bad idea and cancel it) and hopefully the majority of the community see sense and realise this would be terrible.

Edited October 4, 2013 by clydefrog

[gammadust 12]

Gnat;2525651']Why "not fair"? I won't deny any genuine mod maker their dues if this stupid plan does actually happen ......

Just how you put it previously made it look like those mod teams had been incapable of any kind of altruism' date=' which is demonstrated already beyond measure. If they [i']may[/i] have now a prospect of a "Christmas", it would be nothing but late.

Gnat;2525651'](...) Sounds too much like more Gen Y' date=' entitlement and narcissism .........[/quote']

"Entitlement" for being compensated for ones efforts (money)? "Narcissism" for credit being given where it is due (authorship)?

Call it Gen Y all you like i can't see the wrong in any of the above. You paint it as if it was imoral or smtg.

Let me revert your argument there: Entitlement is to assume these mod teams should keep altruistic. Altruism is an option of the one practicing it, it ceases to be altruism as soon as it is imposed from the outside.

And no, i am not ignoring the negative impacts the whole thing may bring. I am just trying to keep the different sides of the issue as clearly seperated as possible.

Edited October 4, 2013 by gammadust

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That's not our decision. BI is the decision maker, we as a community have no influence about that kind of decision. Since as it has been brought on the table by BI I have no doubt about their intentions to change the current system into something more profitable to them. They will get their cut . . . Valve will get their cut and some bread crumbs will be left to the mod makers.

This will destroy the long standing spirit of the whole ArmA modding community . . . you gonna mark my words.

But hey things change in life. BI changed . . . the community has changed for sure and yeah . . . the rest is all conspiracy theory. Where's my tinfoil hat? :D

Yes, BI makes the decisions, but that is influenced by the consumer at a very very low effect. For instance, Feedback tracker represents a few key opportunities to share ideas with the Devs, and share tweaks and fixes. I've noticed that not only is BI skilled, of course because they after all, are the Developers, but the community as well, is highly skilled. Take for instance, JSRS. If you can turn something like Arma 2 Vanilla, into a more intense Arma 2, simply by implimenting realistic sounds, that is amazing. I cant tell you how many times I've ducked because of how intense it can be. I know allot of people who wont play without it. But the point is, if you can connect such a good community, with such good skills, and the Dev's, with such good skills, to help them make this franchise even more worth getting (of course the content must make sense and be one with the story, era, setting, goal of the game, and on point, no unnecessary things), that would be something of a miracle.

[gammadust 12]

^^ this has been said. That improved bridging between Bohemia and the community was suggested here (by [APS]Gnat). I have to say that independently of the issue of this topic, cohese documentation would be advancing the above considerably. The topic at hand could just make it official.

In a way i believe there are some steps that would help tremendously the final goal if they were to be conquered in stages. In other words we should "stratify" the ambition "paid user-made content" into smaller more manageable steps.

[nodunit 397]

4. (and what i mean) "i need money to continue" - has addon sitting there ready for release, checking out how much can be gathered from making release dependant on donations using kickstarter style PR to make more money than just from thoughtful occasional donations. again. difference to actual kickstarter is that there is no "need" for money. it's neither fraud nor crowdfunding. it's abusive use of the knowledge that people will pay if you say the right things. is it a crime? no.

It may not be a crime but its not an attitude that should be tolerated much less encouraged.

You paint it as if it was imoral or smtg.

This depends on the party in question, a few particulars whom I will not name but will know who they are if they read this, were raising a storm and having fits because of a few tools released during Arma 2 and vouched that they would not continue making addons, then they got upset over the steam agreement.

During this they continued to post images of addons they were creating, knowing full well there was no intention of releasing, immoral? Maybe a little, but it's certainly a dick move and a half. If said people then turn around and decide to sell all the content they have shown, all the content they posted to tease with full knowledge that it would never go out, then why should we allow that behavior to go unscathed?

Am I entitled? Maybe a little, because I believe that if you have no intention of releasing something you are making for a particular platform then you shouldn't be broadcasting it in the first place, you're not a company looking for publicity, you're making addons for a single game, there is no need for that publicity stunt.

Edited October 4, 2013 by NodUnit

[mazza 1]

"Entitlement" for being compensated for ones efforts (money)? "Narcissism" for credit being given where it is due (authorship)?

Call it Gen Y all you like i can't see the wrong in any of the above. You paint it as if it was imoral or smtg.

Let me revert your argument there: Entitlement is to assume these mod teams should keep altruistic. Altruism is an option of the one practicing it, it ceases to be altruism as soon as it is imposed from the outside.

And no, i am not ignoring the negative impacts the whole thing may bring. I am just trying to keep the different sides of the issue as clearly seperated as possible.

For over 10 years from OFP -> ARM -> ARM 2 -> ARMA 3 the community never had to pay for addons from third parties, why the need now?

Perhaps there are too many people on this forum who just scored their MBA (stirring the pot). Can you please set this thread up under another topic and make access to that thread by payment only. So many good ideas are discussed on this forum, perhaps people suggesting good ideas need to be rewarded also. Thank f#@k the wheel was invented when it was!!

[gammadust 12]

It may not be a crime but its not an attitude that should be tolerated much less encouraged.

That was his point. But on those cases Bad Benson described it starts to get blurry distinguishing a donation from a payment.

Lets separate the issues here too:

1) Player donates (he can't expect anything in return there is no promise of any kind). [No Promises == Donating]

2) Modder makes releases dependant on "donations". He is actually selling! [Promises == Selling]

We presently live in 1), and we assume there is no selling even if there is some kind of promising from the modder. It is very blurry and unclear, improving on this would be a step for the better. Defining a system even for donations alone would impose clearing eventual situations such as these, they are rare, as such, not much needed). But it would protect all interested parties. All possible "deceit" falling in this category is either the "donator" responsability to avoid or to denounce in the case of the very transaction be miscaracterized as donation by modder, when in fact is a sell (promise was made).

Going forward to some kind of 2) would by definition impose that clarification. PR deceit would be also clearly defined. An idoneous party should mediate the transaction to protect the buyer (escrow).

Edit2: (I missed your edit)

This depends on the party in question, a few particulars whom I will not name but will know who they are if they read this, were raising a storm and having fits because of a few tools released during Arma 2 and vouched that they would not continue making addons, then they got upset over the steam agreement.

You rightly made it general, i shall follow. As far as that goes they let their disappointment be known. Either prefered the status quo or their concerns were dismissed (personaly i agree in regards to the steam agreement)

During this they continued to post images of addons they were creating, knowing full well there was no intention of releasing, immoral? Maybe a little, but it's certainly a dick move and a half. If said people then turn around and decide to sell all the content they have shown, all the content they posted to tease with full knowledge that it would never go out, then why should we allow that behavior to go unscathed?

I interpret it as method of exerting pressure on who's deciding, not so much on players which will miss such mods and teases (them being used or collateraly affected is a fair point but you have to admit it is their only leverage). So far the exchange is "Mods for Attending our concerns" (fair deal imo depending on concerns being reasonable or not). But then you go into the hipothetical "Mods for Money" (Like in: Our concerns have not been attended, we're willing to mantain the deal if money is exchanged instead), not advancing too much: would there be or not a broken promise? Only the case at hand can tell. I won't judge it in advance.

Am I entitled? Maybe a little, because I believe that if you have no intention of releasing something you are making for a particular platform then you shouldn't be broadcasting it in the first place, you're not a company looking for publicity, you're making addons for a single game, there is no need for that publicity stunt.

Teasing may be conditional and is not the same as making a clean promise. Nothing wrong with entitlement as long as it consists of something which is rightly owed. The word evolved with undue negative load. There is a trend in labeling with word "Entitled" people which are not entitled to what they claim, but because whatever they claim it is in excess of what they could rightly claim. Not minor observation, do note the perversion of the actual meaning against the common use (read it twice if needed).

Now, i do think this is still a valid point, as far as the current state of affairs imply by all practice the assumption mods are freely accessible. We'll have to choose if whatever trade off in the balance actually compensates for this status quo to be diminished or cease altogether (unlikely).

---

Edit:

For over 10 years from OFP -> ARM -> ARM 2 -> ARMA 3 the community never had to pay for addons from third parties, why the need now?

It is not about a "need", it is about the possibility to improve on the present state for us (Players and modders alike). If we reach the conclusion there is nothing to gain, you'll have my neutrality. Or worse, that we can only loose, you'll have my opposing vote.

Perhaps there are too many people on this forum who just scored their MBA (stirring the pot). Can you please set this thread up under another topic and make access to that thread by payment only. So many good ideas are discussed on this forum, perhaps people suggesting good ideas need to be rewarded also. Thank f#@k the wheel was invented when it was!!

I am not a moderator, if they find this thread more suiting elsewhere, i am sure they'll move it. Maybe a bit at the expense of OP's purpose, for better or worse the discussion took off on this one.

Edited October 4, 2013 by gammadust

[bad benson 1733]

This depends on the party in question, a few particulars whom I will not name but will know who they are if they read this, were raising a storm and having fits because of a few tools released during Arma 2 and vouched that they would not continue making addons, then they got upset over the steam agreement.

During this they continued to post images of addons they were creating, knowing full well there was no intention of releasing, immoral? Maybe a little, but it's certainly a dick move and a half. If said people then turn around and decide to sell all the content they have shown, all the content they posted to tease with full knowledge that it would never go out, then why should we allow that behavior to go unscathed?

Am I entitled? Maybe a little, because I believe that if you have no intention of releasing something you are making for a particular platform then you shouldn't be broadcasting it in the first place, you're not a company looking for publicity, you're making addons for a single game, there is no need for that publicity stunt.

this is exactly what i was on about. sorry for stretching it out and being unclear so much. but this kind of PR stunt is what i mean. it's not that donations are bad. i myself have suggested a unified donate button for content creator pages on various platforms but i still see potential for this kind of behaviour not for the fact that donations are there but money itself in general.

i totally agree that in some way people "deserve" compensation. but then again. why compensation? no one forced them to start modding or to mod as much as they did. you don't build something in your garage and then go out into the world to ask for compensation. you try to sell it.

but since donations will always be voluntary i guess there's not really much to be upset about unless you care about general mentality and motivations.

i just want to say that it's nice how this, eventhough based on non information and specualtion, is a good discussion and an interesting reflection about the community. thanks to gammadust for trying to keep us from going all nostradamus ;)

^^ this has been said. That improved bridging between Bohemia and the community was suggested here (by [APS]Gnat). I have to say that independently of the issue of this topic, cohese documentation would be advancing the above considerably. The topic at hand could just make it official.

In a way i believe there are some steps that would help tremendously the final goal if they were to be conquered in stages. In other words we should "stratify" the ambition "paid user-made content" into smaller more manageable steps.

i think this part is much more important than anything discussed here.

For over 10 years from OFP -> ARM -> ARM 2 -> ARMA 3 the community never had to pay for addons from third parties, why the need now?

Perhaps there are too many people on this forum who just scored their MBA (stirring the pot). Can you please set this thread up under another topic and make access to that thread by payment only. So many good ideas are discussed on this forum, perhaps people suggesting good ideas need to be rewarded also. Thank f#@k the wheel was invented when it was!!

pretty provokative but also pretty funny and there's also some truth in there. why now? it's always easy to ask people if they want money. it's like asking a group of male teenagers. "wanna see some tits?". the answer is pretty clear.:p

But on those cases Bad Benson described it starts to get blurry distinguishing a donation from a payment.

that's a great (and better) description of what i meant by "abusive". and my whole point was the blurriness. it's hard to grasp. sorry :o

i think one thing that also bothers me is the fact why we talk about donations. it's basically the light version of paid mods which emerged after people now feel like money has to be put in there somewhere. to me that is not a given. i think that this is important, if you want to understand why one could have a "problem" with donations at all.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Bad Benson

[chrisb 196]

For over 10 years from OFP -> ARM -> ARM 2 -> ARMA 3 the community never had to pay for addons from third parties, why the need now?

Perhaps there are too many people on this forum who just scored their MBA (stirring the pot). Can you please set this thread up under another topic and make access to that thread by payment only. So many good ideas are discussed on this forum, perhaps people suggesting good ideas need to be rewarded also. Thank f#@k the wheel was invented when it was!!

You have to maybe accept the game/series moved on, along with the times. Its on Steam now, BIS have gone more toward mainstream with A3, this is not like the earlier titles.

Things many of us, perhaps don’t like, will make an appearance, more so now than ever.

It’s a shame, but why can't it add a new angle to the mod/addon scene, I don't think it will decimate it, as some seem to think it will. Why should it.

If you make an addon and don’t want to charge for it, then don’t.

Make one that you do want to charge for, and provided it passes whatever they have put in place to monitor mod/addons quality, then charge, why not..

If your commitment to the community, is to make addons and not charge, then that's noble.

However, if another guy's commitment to the community is to make an addon and charge, who is to say that's a lessor stance, it will have to pass quality tests I'm sure.

I can't see why not having it for a decade, means it can never happen...

[FredAirland 13]

Many of the posts above relate on how paid mods would affect the community and such, but, maybe due to the fact that many contributors are not modders themselves but mod users, I think one aspect of mod creation is greatly missing from this thread (it might be there in the 14+ pages before my post, sorry):

What does it take to make a really good mod ? I mean a mod with original 3d assets, sounds and music, terrain, configs, scipts and tested to a production level ?

Since a mod is basically a game in the game you will mostly need a team similar to the one needed to create a full game, except for the graphics and engine programming.

look at those post in the unity Forums

(Unity is a very popular game engine) those are all people and teams looking for specialistic skills. Well the issue is most of those people will work for you for money or revenue share, not for free.

you can obviously search skilled specialists within the community, but then each one will have his ongoing project, work family and almost inevitably many projects will get stuck and never happen or get continually slowed down by single members.

Now everyone is happy when bistudio comes out with a paid add-on, why can't it be the same with 3rd party add-ons and mods ?

An indirect effect of this would be that since bistudio is a company and has to pay employees, outsourcing mods and getting a % of them, can secure a continuous flow of cash to pay salaries and employ the very same people in more productive activities such as improve the existing engine...

[igneous01 19]

I think the only time I would consider paid mods/addons is if the source for the engine were made available. SQF does not warrant paid addons for me; it is slow, very limited, and terrible to debug. That is not justification to pay for an addon in my opinion, because it will run on a scripting language that does not handle complex features or performance well.

[noubernou 77]

I think the only time I would consider paid mods/addons is if the source for the engine were made available. SQF does not warrant paid addons for me; it is slow, very limited, and terrible to debug. That is not justification to pay for an addon in my opinion, because it will run on a scripting language that does not handle complex features or performance well.

That is simply not true.

You can write extremely fast and robust code in SQF if you know what you are doing. Most people just do not know what they are doing.

[clydefrog 3]

Many of the posts above relate on how paid mods would affect the community and such, but, maybe due to the fact that many contributors are not modders themselves but mod users, I think one aspect of mod creation is greatly missing from this thread (it might be there in the 14+ pages before my post, sorry):

What does it take to make a really good mod ? I mean a mod with original 3d assets, sounds and music, terrain, configs, scipts and tested to a production level ?

Since a mod is basically a game in the game you will mostly need a team similar to the one needed to create a full game, except for the graphics and engine programming.

look at those post in the unity Forums

(Unity is a very popular game engine) those are all people and teams looking for specialistic skills. Well the issue is most of those people will work for you for money or revenue share, not for free.

you can obviously search skilled specialists within the community, but then each one will have his ongoing project, work family and almost inevitably many projects will get stuck and never happen or get continually slowed down by single members.

Now everyone is happy when bistudio comes out with a paid add-on, why can't it be the same with 3rd party add-ons and mods ?

An indirect effect of this would be that since bistudio is a company and has to pay employees, outsourcing mods and getting a % of them, can secure a continuous flow of cash to pay salaries and employ the very same people in more productive activities such as improve the existing engine...

Well I don't know about other people here, but in Arma "mod" to me means addon and they are one and the same. That can be anything from a client-side thing like the GDT mods (sun/grass/nightvision) up to something like I44.

[igneous01 19]

That is simply not true.

You can write extremely fast and robust code in SQF if you know what you are doing. Most people just do not know what they are doing.

The problem is that SQF needs to be parsed, then executed as native code to the game. Interpreting and parsing code in realtime with the engine causes performance slowdowns. I would prefer working with the native source.

[Ranwer135 308]

I dont know if microsoft will allow the BI company to import their flight models. But It would be fantastic if there was a ATC module that will allow you to plot your own routes as well as the actual speech from FSX. :cool:

[iceman77 18]

I think it's an excellent sign. Finally some more quality content. I love the idea of buying addons for arma.

Yes it's an excellent sign that many "names" and even myself among many others, have already became reluctant to share content or even ideas. Simply because this idea of buying addons and this thread even exists. People withholding content so others don't use their ideas / concepts / models / textures to make money. Yup, that's a fantastic sign... :rolleyes:

We won't have "even more" quality content. We'll just have less content overall, and just because you have to pay for something doesn't automatically make it a quality product.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Iceman77

[noubernou 77]

The problem is that SQF needs to be parsed, then executed as native code to the game. Interpreting and parsing code in realtime with the engine causes performance slowdowns. I would prefer working with the native source.

Yes, but that doesn't preclude good code from being written in SQF.

Honestly the interpretor is incredibly fast when you have code pre-compiled.

I'd love native access though.

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

Yes it's an excellent sign that many "names" and even myself among many others, have already became reluctant to share content or even ideas. Simply because this idea of buying addons and this thread even exists. People withholding content so others don't use their ideas / concepts / models / textures to make money. Yup, that's a fantastic sign... :rolleyes:

We won't have "even more" quality content. We'll just have less content overall, and just because you have to pay for something doesn't automatically make it a quality product.

I don't get why you'd be reluctant? If you're only reason is because you might be able to make money from it in the future, than that is, no offense, a pretty shitty attitude and reason for developing at all.

[suprememodder 11]

the fsx modders are certifiably nuts(in a good way), arma 3 simply doesn't have the same audience. if you want the savant modders, make a game that appeals to savants. lazy and sloppy attention to detail is not the way to do that.

[chrisb 196]

Yes it's an excellent sign that many "names" and even myself among many others, have already became reluctant to share content or even ideas. Simply because this idea of buying addons and this thread even exists. People withholding content so others don't use their ideas / concepts / models / textures to make money. Yup, that's a fantastic sign... :rolleyes:

We won't have "even more" quality content. We'll just have less content overall, and just because you have to pay for something doesn't automatically make it a quality product.

The thing is @iceman77, there are lots of new “names†that are, and will, come along and fill the gap, ones who will embrace the Steam system, some that make for free and others that will charge for their work, in-fact it may bring in more mod/addon makers, plus having a financial incentive may appeal to some more experienced makers, which could be good for the series in the long term, who knows.

That said @suprememodder might be correct, the way the game has gone, it may not, now its more mainstream than mil/sim like.:(

[[aps]gnat 28]

That said @suprememodder might be correct, the way the game has gone, it may not, now its more mainstream than mil/sim like.:(

Yeh well, they were saying the same about ArmA1 and ArmA2 .......

[iceman77 18]

I don't get why you'd be reluctant? If you're only reason is because you might be able to make money from it in the future, than that is, no offense, a pretty shitty attitude and reason for developing at all.

Whoa whoa whoa!! You've misunderstood my post or simply didn't read it all... I will never try to make money with the content I make. I'm simply reluctant to contribute to the community ATM so opportunists wont possibly make money off of my ideas / concepts in the future, if this payed crap comes to light. I'm only a speck of sand on this beach. There are others that feel the same way. IE; Vilas will never mod again if this happens. As he doesn't want his models & textures ripped off so others can make money from them.

I do not support this idea of payed mods not in the slightest. I will never try to make money from payed addons as I wont have anything to do with this franchise any longer if this comes to happen.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Iceman77

[gammadust 12]

Whoa whoa whoa!! You've misunderstood my post or simply didn't read it all... I will never try to make money with the content I make. I'm simply reluctant to contribute to the community ATM so opportunists wont possibly make money off of my ideas / concepts in the future, if this payed crap comes to light. I'm only a speck of sand on this beach. There are others that feel the same way. IE; Vilas will never mod again if this happens. As he doesn't want his models & textures ripped off so others can make money from them.

Basically the same approach/response but for similar reasons raised with the steam workshop catch-all licensing, which threatens authorship (nevermind being any monetization involved).

What if this whole monetization would lead Steam to compromise, and adjust licensing to a even more inclusive* wording?

*as in more accomodating to modders authorship and compensation concerns.

Edited October 6, 2013 by gammadust

[bad benson 1733]

Vilas will never mod again if this happens. As he doesn't want his models & textures ripped off so others can make money from them.

that would need an unmonitored platform where people can freely sell their (or other's in that case) addons. i'm not sure BI are trying to create an open addon market platform like this. actually i think they have no real plans yet. all we have is "money as incentive" information wise. what i could see happening though is. while right now it's part of friendly competition that there are for example 3 (or more?) weapon resting mods, it would be interesting to see the same situation in a world with money involved. i think the term "ideas are free and no one owns them" won't apply anymore. a cool idea becomes a patent pretty quick in a world of money.

[Ezcoo 47]

Whoa whoa whoa!! You've misunderstood my post or simply didn't read it all... I will never try to make money with the content I make. I'm simply reluctant to contribute to the community ATM so opportunists wont possibly make money off of my ideas / concepts in the future, if this payed crap comes to light. I'm only a speck of sand on this beach. There are others that feel the same way. IE; Vilas will never mod again if this happens. As he doesn't want his models & textures ripped off so others can make money from them.

I do not support this idea of payed mods not in the slightest. I will never try to make money from payed addons as I wont have anything to do with this franchise any longer if this comes to happen.

But what makes you assume that it would be wild market with no control by Bohemia itself? I can't know what you're thinking of course, but reading the text above it really makes it sound like that. Would it change your opinion if, let's say, the paid addons would have to be accepted by Bohemia and if there would be strict conditions for possible content theft (can't apply to concepts, they can't be owned naturally) to make deterrent factor remarkable in order to prevent those thefts? And if they were handled like official content by Bohemia (DLCs), I assume they would be sold under the license terms between Bohemia and Steam, which would mean that the SWS terms wouldn't apply. Would those change your opinion?

[chortles 263]

Therein lies my problem with all the griping... I don't think even Maruk knows for sure what the intended implementation is supposed to be, the line that's generated so much brouhaha basically "oh hey paid user-made addons would be cool" and then users going "oh no it could happen here!"